Para-"Ligurian" Phenomenon

[Villanovan]

There's this dissertation that includes several Trentini samples from Eneolithic to Bronze Age, always G-M201, including two related to Polada Culture (RomIIIT12b/RomIII120b and RomIV58). On Romagnano:
"The grave goods and the date clearly indicate affinity to the Polada A culture."

https://openscience.ub.uni-mainz.de/bits...003475.pdf

Bronze Age samples are from Nogarole, Romagnano III (Polada A), Romagnano IV (Polada A) and Paludei di Volano. PdVT3 and RomIIIT12b/RomIII120b are BA samples confirmed for G-M201, while RomIV58, also from BA, is a probable G-M201 according to the dissertation (it hasn't met authentication requirements though):
"Haplotype G was still present in the Bronze Age, as documented by one confirmed sequence each from Paludei di Volano and Romagnano III (as well as another probable G2a from Romagnano IV)".

RomIIIT12b/RomIII120b was likely negative for the subclade of Otzi, G2a2a1a2-L91.

Unfortunately, only specific PCR-based SNPs were done, so no shotgun sequencing (WGS).

[Stefano]

Has anyone info about this project?
https://celtudalps.com/

[Villanovan]

Has anyone info about this project?
https://celtudalps.com/

Apparently it's finished.
"Project duration: December 2020 - December 2023"
https://www.eurac.edu/en/institutes-cent...celtudalps

Let's see what comes next.

[Stefano]

Apparently it's finished.
"Project duration: December 2020 - December 2023"
https://www.eurac.edu/en/institutes-cent...celtudalps

Let's see what comes next.

I know, i hope the data are released, there should be samples of the Cenomani Gauls from Verona.

[Manofthehour]

Apparently it's finished.
"Project duration: December 2020 - December 2023"
https://www.eurac.edu/en/institutes-cent...celtudalps

Let's see what comes next.

I know, i hope the data are released, there should be samples of the Cenomani Gauls from Verona.

This sight says the project is ongoing until 30th of May 2024
https://data.snf.ch/grants/grant/197103

[alanarchae]

I can’t make my mind up whether the Liguri had a seperate IE language or whether they were non IEs that were Celticised in the iron age (like what seems to have happened to the more northern Raeti). You could make a case for either due to their contacts with both the Lepontic and Gaulish peoples seen in their iron age archaeology. I’m slightly leaning that way as there really seems to be no clearcut evidence for a non Celtic Ligurian language. This contrasts strongly with Lusitanian where the evidence seems clearcut for an IE language which is v likely from the Italo-Celtic branch and is clearly not Celtic (probably closest to Italic but with archaisms that Italic lost) and does nicely fit the model of a language that broke off as it entered Iberia in the beaker era after 2500BC.

Looking back further in time to the bronze age, in areas where the arriving steppe component is heavily diluted in southern Europe, it appears groups could either retain the IE language or adopt the pre IE one and it’s unpredictable. Certainly a lot of the west Mediterranean coast from SW Iberia to the Tiber seems to be a place where non IE languages were adopted by the steppe gene carrying (but diluted) settlers. After all there is no certain IE language (if you leave aside Ligurian) known in the entire west Med coast until you reach the Tiber. But nothing is certain.

[alanarchae]

In question that spring up is if most heavily diluted beaker groups adopted existing non IE languages then why did the ancestors of the Lusitanians not? My own feeling is the Lusitanians ancestors might have only slowly arrived there from the Messeta. Also another factor might be something I read about Portuguese beaker - the beaker elements and non beaker elements seemed to live close by but parallel seperate lives for a considerable period. And a third element may have been old pre beaker groups living in the decaying fortification and only adopting fine maritime beaker for elite drinking but apparently not taking up the more run of the mill beaker pottery used by rural beaker settlements. I understand that Iberia became rather isolated by the end of beaker and perhaps the old elites lost their status and the language of rural beaker groups came to dominate?

I think with Portugal having terrible soil conditions for ancient DNA we can’t even rule out that the Lusitanian language only slowly drifted west and maybe wasn’t dominant until well into the bronze age and maybe related to gradual extension of Cogatas elements into Portugal (which a few sites attest) in the mid to late Bronze age.

[La Tene]

In the Picenes paper my impression is that they are saying that peoples on the Tyrrhenian side of italy have a more "pure" italic profile in the sense that they have less (later) admixture with balkan yamnaya ancestry. The IA central italy group is supposed to be direct continuator of BA Italy ancestry. So if the peoples on the Tyrrhenian side of the peninsula are closer to their BA ancestors, then 1. this BA italy into IA Tyrrhenian profile should in theory be closer to what a proto italic would have looked like after entering italy and mixing with italy neolitic peoples 2. perhaps it gives more strength to a western entry of pre proto italics into italy.

I am aware of some Bell Beaker hot spots in Po valley and Etruria. Some maybe even along coastal liguria (though I read coastal Liguria was more of a transit zone). Anybody know of Bell beakers in Piemonte and north (ancient) Liguria? Did Bell Beakers primarily enter Italy from the NE?